LVS
lvs-users
Google
 
Web LinuxVirtualServer.org

Re: Suggestion for next release? [WAS Re: single load-balancer, multiple

To: "LinuxVirtualServer.org users mailing list." <lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Suggestion for next release? [WAS Re: single load-balancer, multiple clusters?]
From: Horms <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 16:56:56 +0900
On Mon, Apr 07, 2003 at 02:55:18AM -0400, Alan Murrell wrote:

Hi Alan,

> --- Horms <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > sorry I missed the begining of this tread.
> 
> That's alright; I got most of my questions answered, I
> think :-)
> 
> > > will I still be able to put the Real Servers on a
> > > private network, as long as the Director can talk
> 
> Actually, I just tested this today, and the private
> IP's can all talk to each other, so I'm good there :-)

That is good to hear.

> I would like to make a suggestion for hopefully the
> next release?
> 
> In our case, our preferred setup, for the real servers
> (for now, at least) is to have one live server and one
> hot standby (so if the live one becomes unavailable,
> the hot standby goes into action).
> 
> I had no problem with the Linux servers with this,
> using "heartbeat", but one of the reasons I am turning
> to LVS is for the Win2K machines... I was reading ovet
> the ipvsadm man page, in particular the possible
> weightings, however I did not see anything like
> "priority" balancing, whereby all requests would go to
> a particular server, unless it was unavailable, then
> it would go to the next one witht he lowest rating,
> and so on.  The closest I saw was 'weighted least
> connection', which I assume would still mean that some
> requests would go over to the "secondary" server.
> 
> The suggestion: would it be possible to add a
> "priority load balancing" weighting option in one of
> the next releases, so that all the requests go to the
> server witht he lowest rating, and if ti becomes
> unavailable, the requests go the next lowest-rated
> server, and so?  I don;t imagine it would be too hard
> to implement?
> 
> Thoughts?

What you are talking about would require LVS to monitor
the Real Servers. LVS does not do this, it has absolutely
no idea about what real servers are alive or dead. Nor should
it, it is just a router. It accepts packets and forwards them on.

However, it is possible to do exactly what you describe
by running a daemon that monitors the real servers and manipulates
LVS accordingly. There are several available. One that I have
worked on, ldirectord, should be able to do exactly what you
describe.

http://www.vergenet.net/linux/ldirectord/

-- 
Horms
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>